SACRAMENTO  The combined price tag for a grand redesign of California’s plumbing network now surpasses a staggering $35 billion, although there are signals that the final bill will eventually shrink.

It’s still not entirely clear who will pay how much of the final tab, but some very rough estimates have surfaced.

San Diego area ratepayers can expect to pay in the neighborhood of $100 more a year, North County farmers could see their already-rising costs go up as much as $250 for every acre foot of water used and businesses will also be pinched more depending on the amount they take.

Water officials say the alternative is to continue to rely on antiquated state water works that are in danger of being shut down at any time to protect fish.

“What we’re really going to gain is a more reliable system,” said Gary Arant, general manager of Valley Center Municipal Water District and a member of the San Diego County Water Authority board of directors.

Others insist the state is spending too much on overly ambitious programs that may not work, including in the Sacramento Delta and on new water conveyance. Also, the water authority has joined forces with San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, environmentalists and nearly two dozen lawmakers to push a much smaller delivery project.

Final decisions are months, if not years away. But the various players — from local agencies to federal regulators — are locked in intense talks on three related fronts:

• Scaling back a long-stalled $11 billion water bond, which could deliver $227 million to the San Diego County region. Earmarks for certain projects across the state are likely to be erased as Brown and lawmakers look to trim billions to make it more palatable to voters. Reservoir funding is a prime big-ticket target at $3 billion.

• Permitting Gov. Jerry Brown’s $14 billion “twin tunnels” project under the delta or an alternative to bring Northern California water south, including to San Diego County that counts on the current system to fill about a third of its annual needs.

• Securing approval of a related 50-year, $10.5 billion plan to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, from the fishery to flood protection.

While moving forward on separate paths, the various programs are linked politically as well as financially.

Related

The state is counting on nearly $2 billion of the proposed water bond proceeds to help pay for its various programs to restore the environmentally and economically vital delta. The delta is a 1,300-mile maze of water ways that acts as a funnel to bring water to millions of residents, farm land and businesses.

Water agencies that will pay for a new conveyance system want to see the bond measure allocate substantial sums for environmental improvements and storage projects so their supplies are not always squeezed to protect fish. Without that assurance, some doubt the wisdom of pouring billions into a new pipeline that is supposed to minimize harm to the fish now caused by powerful pumps that divert water through the delta.

“That’s the heart and soul of the negotiations,” said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.

The state is preparing a comprehensive financing plan for the delta program, which is expected to be out later in May.

More immediately, the Brown Administration and federal government are moving to release a joint 20,000-page environmental review of the Delta improvement program in the coming days.

“California has struggled over how to deal with the delta for decades,” said Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources. “Meanwhile, the health of the delta continues to decline and with it the water supply reliability that fuels the economy.”

The state’s delta plan is not totally reliant on the proposed bond, however. Billions are tucked away in previously approved bonds, special funds and federal revenues that could be diverted from other uses to keep the delta package on track.

“We have to get the water through the delta,” said Ted Page, president of the Kern County Water Agency who farms near Wasco. “To me, that’s the No. 1 concern.”

Cowin said the goal is to bring the final water bond in under $10 billion. But that puts the $227 million for various water development programs in San Diego County at risk. Statewide, the bond would raise billions for water recycling, clean-water and watershed protection, in addition to storage and delta programs.

Cowin said he supports keeping the $3 billion earmarked for new reservoirs.

Arant likes to hear that. New reservoirs will guard against dry spells and help the state cope with climate change that is reducing snowpack, he said.

Critics say aboveground storage threatens fisheries and other habitat. They say conservation, groundwater and other alternatives would do the job at less cost in terms of money and to the environment.

This year is exhibit A for that argument. The state lost the opportunity to capture some 700,000 acre-feet of early-season abundance because of operation limits tied to fish safeguards and the lack of a backup reservoir to take the early-season runoff that has since dried up, Arant said.

An acre foot is about 326,000 gallons or enough to serve two households for a year.

Thursday’s final snowpack survey of the year is expected to confirm that this has been one of the driest springs on record, with only about half of the normal snowfall.

The delta package and water bond money are designed to stabilize water supplies, even in times of drought, officials say.

Neither is assured, particularly the bond given its history.

After a hard-fought, years-long campaign, lawmakers in 2009 finally approved an $11 billion measure for the 2010 ballot. But the recession and shifting priorities forced them to withdraw it twice.

Complicating passage is the need for a two-thirds vote of the Legislature plus the governor’s signature. Votes could peel away if pet projects — some dub it pork — are deleted. A decision on leaving money in for reservoirs could win some backers and lose others.

Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he is committed to preparing a new bond.

“A lot leaner,” is how Steinberg described what the new version would look like.

When that happens is the question. Brown and lawmakers have a busy agenda ahead. Among the divisive issues competing for time: the budget, new federal health care mandate, school funding formulas, and overhauling the state’s premier environmental protection law.